When a consumer considers purchasing a product or service, the consumer will frequently be interested in acquiring more information about that product or service. Further, the consumer may wish to make a comparison of the products or services that are currently available in the market in order to determine what product might be suitable for the consumer's needs and/or desires. Individually researching each product or service can be time-consuming and burdensome. In addition, the research may require the consumer to have some prior knowledge or familiarity with the features and/or options for the product or service in order to determine relevant points of comparison.
Those skilled in the art are familiar with the existence of various types of information-filtering and product comparison tools. These tools are often web-based and typically allow a consumer to obtain information regarding a product or service and make comparisons of various makes, models and/or types of products and services. This comparison may, for example, be based on specific selection criteria related to that product or service. The selection criteria may be provided by the consumer or may be pre-defined by the website administrator. The websites may also provide additional information regarding the produce or service, such as pricing, reviews, or ratings.
Notwithstanding the existence of these web-based product comparison tools, numerous issues exist with respect to their configuration and application. Some product comparison tools allow a consumer to rate the relative importance of the selection criteria based on the preferences of the consumer. In rating the relative importance of the selection criteria, the consumer may be allowed to assign a weighting value to each selection criterion which corresponds to the level of priority a consumer gives to that criterion. However, it is likely that a consumer may decide that many or all of the criteria should be given high priority and will therefore “max out” the weighting value for each. Maximizing many or all of the criteria will generally produce a result similar to that which would be produced if no priority or importance was assigned, thereby decreasing the effectiveness of the weighting values. Therefore, it may be helpful to have the total weighting values for all criteria equal a particular value, thereby creating a tensile effect such that when one setting is increased, all the other settings will shift correspondingly to maintain the total value. This option compels the consumer to consider and prioritize the criteria when comparing and selecting products.
Despite present attempts to provide weighted sliders having relative movement, problems still remain. In present comparison tools, relative weighting values will not persist once weighted sliders are adjusted to a point of equality. To elaborate, if one criterion is “maxed out” in the relative weighting system, then every other criterion must be set at zero to maintain the aggregate value. In some present comparison tools, when this point of equality occurs, the relative values of the settings are lost. Therefore, when the consumer subsequently moves the maxed out criterion away from the maxed out position, all the remaining sliders will move in common with one another as the previously set relative positions are no longer maintained.
There are other problems with prior art approaches as well. For example, when looking at a ranked list of products following a search, the consumer may wish to see the corresponding weighting values for a product that was ranked lower on the list. A typical existing offering makes no accommodation for such a capability. As another example, a consumer may be familiar with a particular product that is no longer in production. The consumer may prefer the features of that particular product, but is not sure how those features would translate or factor into weighted selection criteria. Again, present product comparison tools do not provide for these features.
Simply put, present product comparison tools do not provide for a suitably user-friendly and effective product comparison tool that will allow a consumer to make an informed buying decision.
Skilled artisans will appreciate that elements in the figures are illustrated for simplicity and clarity and have not necessarily been drawn to scale. For example, the dimensions and/or relative positioning of some of the elements in the figures may be exaggerated relative to other elements to help to improve understanding of various embodiments of the present invention. Also, common but well-understood elements that are useful or necessary in a commercially feasible embodiment are often not depicted in order to facilitate a less obstructed view of these various embodiments of the present invention. It will further be appreciated that certain actions and/or steps may be described or depicted in a particular order of occurrence while those skilled in the art will understand that such specificity with respect to sequence is not actually required. It will also be understood that the terms and expressions used herein have the ordinary meaning as is accorded to such terms and expressions with respect to their corresponding respective areas of inquiry and study except where specific meanings have otherwise been set forth herein.